Albert A. AndersonCopyright 2006I.Religion, Ethics, and The Meaning of LifeA.Modern science is sometimes portrayed as a way of thinking that replaces religion, ethics, and the arts in all cognitive disciplines. Any and all questions of truth and reality are sent to the natural sciences for interpretation and adjudication. In this series of podcasts, we are exploring human nature. But if human nature is an evolving and changing reality, not a fixed and eternal quality, where do we turn to know about the value and meaning of human life? Modern science has tried to preserve its purity, integrity, and independence by ignoring such questions. This is a truism of the scientific method: Value questions and assumptions must be put aside when scientists are investigating truth and reality. But if that is so, then what happens to meaning and value? Even if we embrace and accept all the truths of physics, chemistry, and biology, we might still want to answer this question: “What does it all mean?”B. Surely we have good reasons for applauding and retaining the findings of the natural sciences. The practical applications of science in medicine, agriculture, architecture, computer technology, and a host of other practical fields are worth preserving. But unless and until we answer the value questions related to human existence, we ignore what we most urgently need to know. Even if we accept the view that the survival of the human species drives human evolution, that does not provide answers to the fundamental questions about the meaning and value of human life. We commit the “naturalistic fallacy” if we try to equate what “is” with what “ought to be.” Just because a species survives, that tells us nothing about its moral value. If we have choices about how a species might be made better, we need a way of justifying judgments about what “better” would mean. Scientific inquiry can tell us what has happened, what is now happening, and what is likely to happen in the natural world, but science has no way of answering the question of what ought to happen. Scientific investigation is undermined when the scientists take their moral, religious, or aesthetic values into the laboratory.C. In Podcast 5 of this series about human nature, the role of religion emerges from the reflections by Mustafa Mond and the other characters in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Even the most superficial glance at human history shows how prevalent religion has been. But what does religion have to do with ethics? Can moral claims be justified by religious belief? We are so accustomed to hearing religious people making moral claims, that question may sound strange. In the dialogue Euthyphro we find Socrates questioning a prominent religious figure about the relationship between religion and ethics. Socrates: Right now I’d rather hear a more precise answer to my question: “What is holiness?” So far you have only told me that it’s what you are doing, charging your father with murder.Euthyphro: And that’s true, Socrates.Socrates: No doubt; but there are many other holy acts.Euthyphro: There are.Socrates: But I didn’t ask for examples of holiness; I asked you to explain the idea that makes all holy things holy. Do you recall saying that there is one idea that makes unholy things unholy and holy things holy?Euthyphro: I remember.Socrates: Then if you tell me what that idea is, I’ll have a standard to which I can look and measure the nature of actions, whether yours or anyone else’s, and say that this action is holy and that one is unholy. Euthyphro: If you like, I’ll tell you.Socrates: I’d like that a lot.Euthyphro: All right. Holiness is what is dear to the gods, and unholiness is what is not dear to them. [7]Socrates: Good, Euthyphro. Now you’ve given me the kind of answer I wanted. But I’m not sure it’s true. No doubt you can prove it to me.Euthyphro: Of course.Socrates: Then let’s clarify the issue. What is dear to the gods is holy, and what is hateful to the gods is unholy. Isn’t that what we said?Euthyphro: Yes, that’s what we said.Socrates: And we were right?Euthyphro: Yes, Socrates, I think so. Socrates: But Euthyphro, didn’t we also say that the gods have conflicts and hatreds and differences?Euthyphro: Yes, we did.Socrates: What kind of difference creates hostility and anger? For example, suppose that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of that sort make us enemies and make us hate each other? Wouldn’t we simply calculate and bring an end to the dispute? Euthyphro: Of course.Socrates: Or suppose we differ about size; don’t we bring an end to that difference by measuring?Euthyphro: True.Socrates: And we can end an argument about weight by using a scale?Euthyphro: Sure.Socrates: Then what kind of differences make us angry and hostile because they can’t be settled like that? You probably can’t answer off the top of your head, so I’ll suggest that this happens when we disagree about the just and unjust, good and bad, and beautiful and ugly. Aren’t these the kinds of things over which you and I and all people differ, quarrel, and become enemies?Euthyphro: Yes, Socrates, those are the differences over which we become enemies.Socrates: What about the gods, Euthyphro, don’t they fight about the same things?Euthyphro: They do.Socrates: They differ about good and bad, justice and injustice, right and wrong. If there were no such differences, they wouldn’t fight with each other, would they?Euthyphro: You’re right.Socrates: Doesn’t every person love what is beautiful and just and good and hate the opposite?Euthyphro: That’s true.Socrates: But you also say that the same things are considered by some people to be just and by other people to be unjust. They dispute about those differences, and pretty soon they fight and go to war with each other.Euthyphro: Yes, that’s right. [8]Socrates: Then it appears that the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods. They are both hateful and dear to them. Euthyphro: True.Socrates: Then according to this argument the same things are both holy and unholy?Euthyphro: I suppose so.Socrates: Then you surprise me, my friend. You have not answered my question. I definitely did not ask about what is both holy and unholy. [Plato, Euthyphro, pp. 6-7. Translation published by Agora Publications, Inc.]After several more attempts, Euthyphro is still unable to justify moral claims on the basis of divine authority. By the time he flees from Socrates’ questions, it appears that moral claims about what is just and morally right cannot be based on religion. It seems more likely that moral claims are prior to religious ones.D. Even raising that question in certain contexts is dangerous. Consider the story Plato tells in his dialogue Apology. Socrates has been put on trial by the Athenians precisely because he has questioned the role of religion in justifying moral values. Charges of atheism and corrupting young people have been brought against him; these crimes are punishable by death in Plato’s Athens. Two influential citizens — Meletus and Anytus — have indicted Socrates on those charges. In his trial Socrates attempts to answer them, but when a democratic vote is taken among the 500 members of the jury, he is convicted of corrupting young people by questioning the prevailing religious beliefs. Then he is sentenced to death. E.Socrates is neither a scientist nor a theologian; he is a philosopher — a lover of wisdom. In Plato’s dialogue Apology, Socrates explains his life-long mission: Let’s assume that you let me go free, rejecting the advice of Anytus, who said that if I were not put to death I ought not to have been prosecuted, and that if I escape now your sons will all be utterly ruined by listening to my words. Let’s assume that you say to me, “Socrates, this time we will ignore Anytus and will let you off, but only on the condition that you are not to inquire and speculate in this way any more, and that if you are caught doing this you will die.” If this were the condition on which you let me go, I would reply as follows: “Athenians, I honor and love you, but I will obey the god rather than you. While I have life and strength, I will never stop practicing and teaching philosophy. I will exhort anyone whom I meet and try to convince that person, saying: My friend, why do you, a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about acquiring the largest amount of money and honor and reputation and so little about wisdom, truth, and improvement of the soul, which you never think about at all? Are you not ashamed of this?” If the person with whom I’m talking says “Yes, I do care,” I will not go away or release that person. I will interrogate and examine and cross-examine. If I think that person has no virtue, but only pretends to have it, I will accuse that person of undervaluing the greater and overvaluing the less. [30] I will say this to everyone whom I meet, young and old, citizen and foreigner, but especially to the citizens, because they are my siblings. This is the command from the god. I believe that no greater good has ever happened in the state than my service to the god. I do nothing but go around persuading you all, old and young alike, not to care primarily about your body or your property but first and foremost to care for the improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue does not come from money, but that from virtue come money and every other good for human beings, public as well as private. This is what I say, and if this is the doctrine that corrupts young people, my influence is truly destructive. But if anyone claims that this is not what I say, that person is not telling the truth. Men of Athens, I say to you, whether you do what Anytus suggests or not, whether you acquit me or not, please be aware that I will never change my ways, not even if I have to die many times. [Plato, Apology, 29-30, Agora Publications]F.To be a philosopher in Socrates’ sense of that term means to pursue the rational analysis and justification of fundamental value concepts such as truth, justice, goodness, holiness, and any others that emerge as meaningful to human beings. II.Mythos A.Plato’s dialogues are inspired by Socrates’ method of thinking. They stand outside science, religion, and art and evaluate the ideas other forms of inquiry have produced. Philosophical inquiry begins where they end and seeks to incorporate them in a broader context. What is that context? How do these individual methods of inquiry relate to each other? Is such general knowledge even possible? B.One approach is to distinguish different kinds of thinking. The difference between mythos and logos is one such distinction. In his dialogue Protagoras, Plato uses a story — a myth — about how the gods created human beings to reflect on human nature and its connection to human values. Because it is a story about gods, it poses the question of the nature and function of religion as it relates to ethical and political values. C.Plato often uses myths to present ideas, and by doing that he invites us, as listeners and readers, to enter the dialogue. Socrates and Protagoras are considering the question of whether it is possible to teach a fundamental ethical concept such as goodness. Socrates has just given some examples that seem to show that goodness cannot be taught, but Protagoras insists that it can and must be taught. Socrates asks him to justify that claim, and Protagoras tells a story, a mythos. D.Here is that myth: Long ago there was a time when there were only gods, no mortal creatures. When the time came for mortals to be created, the gods fashioned them out of earth and fire and mixtures of both elements. They did this inside the earth, and when they were about to bring them into the light of day, they ordered Prometheus and Epimetheus to equip them, to distribute appropriate qualities or powers to each of them. Epimetheus said to Prometheus: “Let me do it, and then you can inspect what I have done.” Prometheus agreed, and Epimetheus made the distribution. He gave some of the mortals strength without speed, and some of the weaker ones he equipped with speed. He armed some, and others he left unarmed, giving them another means of surviving. On some of the little ones he bestowed wings so that they could fly, and for others he provided a habitat underground. Those to whom he gave great size, he protected by their very bulk. And so it was with the rest of his distribution, always compensating deficiency with advantage. In this way he made sure that no species would be destroyed. [321] Once he had guarded against their destruction by each another, he also devised ways of protecting them against the seasons, clothing them with thick hair and skins sufficient to defend them against the winter cold, yet able to resist the summer heat. This also provided them with a natural bed when they wanted to rest. Some he furnished with hooves and hard and callous skin under their feet. Then he gave them varieties of food­ — plants from the soil to some, fruits of trees to others, and roots to still others. To some he gave other animals as food. He arranged that some would have only a few young ones, while those they preyed upon were very fertile. In this manner each species was preserved. This is how Epimetheus, who was not too wise, distributed among the other animals all the qualities he had to give. When he came to human beings, who were as yet unequipped, he was at a loss. As he stood pondering the situation, Prometheus came to inspect the distribution. He found that the other animals were quite suitably endowed, but humans were naked and shoeless, and they had neither beds nor weapons for defense. The appointed hour was approaching when human beings were to emerge from earth into the light of day. Prometheus, in order to save human beings from destruction, decided to steal skill in the crafts from Hephaestus and Athena, along with fire — skill in the crafts was useless without fire. In this way human beings acquired the skill required to support life. But humans did not have political wisdom, which was kept by Zeus. Prometheus did not have the power to enter into the citadel of heaven, where Zeus lived. Moreover, Zeus had terrible sentinels guarding his palace. Prometheus was only able to sneak into the common workshop of Athena and Hephaestus, in which they used to practice their crafts. He carried off Hephaestus’ art of working by fire,[1] and from Athena he took handicrafts and agricultural skill.[2] These he gave to human beings. In this way people were supplied with what they needed to live. It is said that Prometheus was later prosecuted for theft, all because of the blunder by Epimetheus. [322] Once they acquired these divine crafts, human beings shared some of the divine qualities; they were the only animals that worshipped the gods. They built altars and made images of the gods. It did not take long for them to invent names and articulate speech. Human beings constructed houses; made clothes, shoes, and beds; and they discovered how to get food from the earth. Provided for in this way, humankind at first lived separated from each other — there were no cities. But they were so much weaker than the wild animals that they were being destroyed. Human technology was only sufficient to provide them with food, shelter, and clothing, but it did not enable them to make war against other animals. They lacked the skill of government, of which making war is a part. After a while, the desire for self-preservation gathered them into cities. But when they started living together, they started fighting with each other, and they were soon on the verge of dispersion and destruction. Zeus feared that the entire race would be exterminated, so he sent Hermes to give them mutual respect and justice to forge bonds of friendship and maintain order in their republics. Hermes asked Zeus how he should impart justice and respect among people. Should I distribute them as the arts are distributed — to a favored few only — as one skilled individual provides medicine or some other art for many unskilled ones? “Is this the way I should distribute justice and respect among people? Or should I give them to everyone?” “To everyone,” said Zeus. “I want them all to have a share, because cities cannot exist if only a few possess these qualities, the way only a minority excel in the arts and crafts. Furthermore, by my order make a law that anyone who lacks the qualities of respect and justice will be put to death. Such a person is a plague to the republic.”Socrates, this is the reason why the Athenians, and humankind in general allow only a few to share in their deliberations when the question relates to carpentry or any other handicraft. When someone else interferes, they object, because that person is not among the favored few. That is quite natural. But when they meet to deliberate about political skill, which only comes from justice and wisdom, they patiently listen to any person who speaks. That is also natural, because they think that everyone ought to share in it. Republics could not exist if it were otherwise. [323] Socrates, this myth shows why goodness can and must be taught. [This is my translation of that passage from Plato’s Protagoras, copyright 2006 by Agora Publications, Inc.]III.LogosA.Myths such as this one have a wonderful ability to bring ideas to consciousness, but they do not answer questions. That is the task of logos — of rational analysis and justification.B.To do that we must step outside the myth, interpret it, and examine what it means. Only then is it possible to evaluate the insights it provides.

[1] Hephaestus was a metalworker, the god of fire, and the patron of craftsmen.[2] Athena was linked to agriculture, various kinds of handicraft, and the cultivation of the olive tree.